Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:18:40 -0800
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] udivdi3: 64 bit divide
Message-ID: <20070227131840.672d6932@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <20070227122437.da27c3cd.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
References: <20070226173517.66bf0fec@freekitty>
	<20070227122437.da27c3cd.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Organization: Linux Foundation
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1237
Lines: 29

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:24:37 -0800
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:35:17 -0800 Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > The kernel already has several implmentations and usages of 64 by 64 
> > bit divide.
> > 
> > Although it is significantly slower, there are places that need it so
> > provide one generic version using scaling, and allow existing platform
> > versions to continue.
> 
> The reason we implement 64/32 via do_div() is, for better or for worse, to
> make people think before they use it.  And to make it stand out, and so
> that we discover places that are using it by accident, where they could use
> something cheaper.
> 
> However your implementation of the presumably even more expensive 64/64
> allows us to do 64/64 with a plain old "/" operator.
> 
> If the do_div() philosophy is any good then we should surely repeat it for
> 64/64, no?
> 

Then we should pull the existing udivdi3 implementations?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/